User:Sauceboss12/sandbox

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sauseboss12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sauceboss12/sandbox

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation[edit]
The Lead section is well written and introduces the topic. It could be more tailored to the sections that follow and should include a citation. Overall, very clear and concise.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation[edit]
The content is relevant and current. The article does not address equity gaps.

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
The content is neutral and does not represent any particular bias. No viewpoints are over or underrepresented.

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Most of the content has sources and the links to the sources I tried worked. There are a few links to Wikipedia pages that do not exist, such as "information labeling", that should be edited or removed.

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation[edit]
The content is broken down into well organized sections and easy to follow.

Images and Media[edit]
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation[edit]
The image added was relevant and its label was clearly written. The image is in compliance with Wikipedia policies.

For New Articles Only[edit]
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation[edit]
This is a really solid contribution. A few formatting adjustments could help make the article easier to visually process and more consistent with other similar articles.

Article feedback (Leadership)[edit]
Hi Sauceboss12! Overall, great job on your article and it was written concise and clearly so I learned a lot about information assurance. Here are some feedback and suggestions as you polish up your article:


 * Keep all formatting consistent. It seems like some of the citations are placed before the period and some are placed after. Please make sure that all citations are placed after the period.
 * Continue adding citations. I see that you have already added citations so continue working on them and make sure that all 20 of the articles from your annotations are cited in the article

Overall great job and looking forward to reading your final article draft!Panacotta 101 Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sauseboss12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sauceboss12/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Lead is able to reflect new content added. The first sentence introduces the topic. Following sentences briefly describe major sections of the article. The Lead is overall concise. But there seems to be a citation that is not working in the Lead: "Information assurance is built on the pillars of integrity, availability, authenticity, non-repudiation and confidentiality of user data.[1]".

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Content added is relevant to the topic and relatively up-to-date. It does not deal with equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Content added is neutral. It does not biased towards a particular position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the new content are backed up with sources. Sources are current and from different authors. Links I checked could work. However, there seems to be some errors in the reference list about the date.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Content is clear. There are some minor errors such as the expressions could be more consistent:"the first used to prevent intrusions, the 2nd to detect intrusion and the 3rd for survivability". Content added is well-organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
Image added could enhance the understanding. The caption helps explain the image well.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added improves the overall quality of the article. It could be improved by fixing ensuring consistent formats and all links could work. Some of the links to other Wikipedia articles seem to be not working.

Article feedback (Leadership)
Hi Sauceboss12! Overall, great job on your article and it was written concise and clearly so I learned a lot about information assurance. Here are some feedback and suggestions as you polish up your article:


 * Keep all formatting consistent. It seems like some of the citations are placed before the period and some are placed after. Please make sure that all citations are placed after the period.
 * Continue adding citations. I see that you have already added citations so continue working on them and make sure that all 20 of the articles from your annotations are cited in the article

Overall great job and looking forward to reading your final article draft!

Mary Jane 404 Peer Review

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sauceboss12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Link

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation: The lead is strong and contains most of the article sections but not all.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation: The content is relevant and up to date. It does not deal with equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation: The content is neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation: The sources are relevant and up to date. The links I checked work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

'''Organization evaluation: The content is concise and well written. I didn't see any spelling errors.'''

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation: The image is appealing and a good touch.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation:

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The article looks really strong. It's thorough, well written, and well organized. My only suggestion is to not use the passive voice like "us" because it doesn't sound encyclopedic.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sauceboss12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Link

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation: The Lead has been updated and includes a clear introduction that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It does not include a brief description of the article's major sections yet (for example, business development) No, it does not contain information that is not present in the article and is concise and clear.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation: The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. From my understanding of the topic, there is no content that is missing. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps; and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation: The content added is neutral and no claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation: Yes, most new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. All sources haven't been added yet, but the available sources do reflect the available literature on the topic and are current and up-to-date. The sources I checked are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I checked a few links, only the first one seems to take me to a repository rather than directly to the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation: The content added is well-written and concise, clear, and easy to read. The content does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The content added is well-organized; and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation: One image on the McCumber cube has been added yet, and is well captioned and enhances my understanding of the topic. It adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and is laid out in a visually appealing way.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation: The article is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation: The content added has definitely improved the overall quality of the article and makes the article more complete. In my opinion, the content added is easy to read and gives a person new to the topic a clear insight into it. The content can be improved by making the sections (especially towards the end) a bit more detailed.

Peer Review - Information Assurance (SfWarriors99)
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sauceboss12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Information assurance

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead shared is specific, concise, and provides accurate content to support the rest of the article. The Lead has an introductory sentence that describes the topic and helps build onto major sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant and provides multiples examples and facets of knowledge related to the topic. The information does not connect back to any equity groups, but references information and cybersecurity concerns within the risk management process.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and provides and well based encyclopedia like tone providing the audience with accurate information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The new content is backed up by reliable sources of information and the author references multiple current and thorough links to create a diverse spectrum of authors.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content added is well written without any errors. It is also very well organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No images are added.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the information presented is accurate, concise, and specific. The content is useful and creates a complete image. I would recommend you to add more examples to further bolster your presentation of the data.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)

Sauceboss12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Sauceboss12/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, what information assurance is built on has been added.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the first sentence gives a brief overview of what information assurance is.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, major sections and sub sections within major sections have been highlighted.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Yes, the lead mentioned how protections apply to data in transit, both physical and electronic forms as well as data at rest but have yet to delve into it in the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise and clear!

Lead evaluation
The lead successfully informs the reader what information assurance is and gives a clear overview of what to expect in the content of the article. However, more information can be included in terms of the data in transit, physical and electronic forms part.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes because it explains how information assurance is built on.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes because this is the backbone of information assurance.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

All content presented are relevant. However, I think an example can be included in terms of how information assurance may be applied to the intersection of corporate and privacy. I believe this would enhance and consolidate the reader's understanding of information assurance. Also, I think more information about pillars can be included in terms of how they support information assurance.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, this article is a relatively technical term and a recent topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes and I think short sentences add to the neutrality of the article.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, the information presented seems to be factual and concise!


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think not necessarily that a viewpoint has been underrepresented but I think more information can be added in terms of how the pillars support or aid information assurance.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, it is rather informative.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think the short sentences written in the article enhances the neutrality of it, by making it more factual. There aren't any biased stances in the article, which makes the article seem factual, informative and gets straight to the point. However, I think more information can be added in terms of how the pillars support or aid information assurance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, there are constant referrals to sources and the content contains several footnotes.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources are able to reflect the available literature but perhaps more sources can be used to provide greater details of the content.


 * Are the sources current?

Some sources are current. The sources used range form 2005 to 2013.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the article includes stub pages and is backed up by a source that works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, I think the headings and sub-headings work well.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, they are organised clearly, according to the order of what's being introduced in the lead.

Organization evaluation
I think the article's structure is coherent and easy to understand. Headings and subheadings are particularly useful in achieving this!

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
Doesn't have images.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, because readers will have a more foundational understanding of what Information assurance is since it is broken down into more details.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Readers understand the concept behind information assurance and the different areas this topic intersect with.


 * How can the content added be improved?

I think examples can be included in terms of how information assurance intersect with other topics and a walk through of how information assurance is applied and carried out with the aid of an example

Overall evaluation
I think this is a good start in addressing information assurance. There's a clear structure that allows the reader to anticipate what to learn in the remaining of the article. The information presented is objective and concise, which provides a fundamental understanding of what information assurance is and its pillars. However, I think examples can be included in terms of how information assurance intersect with other topics and a walk through of how information assurance is applied and carried out with the aid of an example to further strengthen the article.

Peer review(Tinayyt)
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sauceboss12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Information assurance

Overall Impression
The entire article seems to be neutral and is pretty easy to read, can add media to make the article more visually appealing to reader

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead seems to be updated with new information and there is a introductory sentence, no unnecessary information is presented,

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The content seems to be relevant, however, most reference seems to be from decades ago.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The tone is neutral with no particular bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The sources does not seems to be up to date, and can be diversified.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

No media is presented.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

The article meet the notability requirement and is supported by multiple sources, there are section headings and infoboxes within the article.
 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

The entire article seems to be neutral and is pretty easy to read, can add media to make the article more visually appealing to reader
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Peer review(Bunnyshampoo)
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sauceboss12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation: The lead is concise and detailed. Is the citation messed up for the lead?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes (one source is from 2002, but I think it is ok)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?no

Content evaluation: Content is good so far.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?no

Tone and balance evaluation: The tone is neutral and encyclopedic

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes for the most part
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? n/a
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
There are 11 sources. Most are generally up to date. Is the first source working as intended?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?yes

Organization evaluation: organization was good, some grammatical error such as the sentence in the "Evolution" section.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?yes
 * Are images well-captioned?yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Images and media evaluation: Image adheres to Wikipedia's rule.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

New Article Evaluation: Yes there are several discoverable links.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is very organized
 * How can the content added be improved? Add real world examples

Overall evaluation: This is a very organized article. It explains every section clearly, maybe it may be beneficial to reference some real world usage of IA.

Peer Review (IntheHeartofTexas)
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sauceboss12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sandbox

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? a bit detailed, but it may be necessary

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes most of the sources are pretty recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?no

Content evaluation: Content is seems good.

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?no

Tone and balance evaluation: The tone is neutral and objective

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes for the most part
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? n/a
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation[edit]
There are 11 sources. Most seem up to date.

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?yes

Organization evaluation: It is well organized, but maybe it could is a little wordy and hard to read at times.

Images and Media[edit]
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?yes
 * Are images well-captioned?yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Images and media evaluation: Image adheres to Wikipedia's rule.

For New Articles Only[edit]
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? yes
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

New Article Evaluation: Yes there are several discoverable links.

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is very organized
 * How can the content added be improved? Add real world examples

Overall evaluation: This is a very organized article and detailed article.

Lead
Information assurance (IA) is the practice of assuring information and managing risks related to the use, processing, storage, and transmission of information. Information assurance is built on the pillars of integrity, availability, authenticity, non-repudiation and confidentiality of user data.[1] IA encompasses not only digital but also physical techniques. These protections apply to data in transit, both physical and electronic forms, as well as data at rest. IA is best thought of as a superset of information security (i.e. umbrella term) and as the business outcome of information risk management.

Overview
Information assurance (IA) is the process of processing, storing, and transmitting and the right information to the right people at the right time. IA relates to the business level and strategic risk management of information and related systems, rather than the creation and application of security controls. IA is used to benefit business through the use of information risk management, trust management, resilience, appropriate architecture, system safety, and security, which increases the utility of information to only their authorized users and reduces. Therefore, in addition to defending against malicious hackers and code (e.g., viruses), IA practitioners consider corporate governance issues such as privacy, regulatory and standards compliance, auditing, business continuity, and disaster recovery as they relate to information systems. Further, IA is an interdisciplinary field requiring expertise in business, accounting, user experience, fraud examination, forensic science, management science, systems engineering, security engineering, and criminology, in addition to computer science.

Evolution
With the growth of telecommunication networks also comes the dependency on networks, which makes communities increasing vulnerable to cyber attacks that could interrupt degrade or destroy vital services. Starting from the 1950's the role and use of information assurance has grown and evolved. In the beginning information assurance involved just the backing up of data. However once the volume of information increased the act of information assurance began to become automized, reducing the use of operator intervention, allowing for the creation of instant backup. The last main development of information assurance is the implementation of distributed systems for the processing and storage of data through techniques like SANs and NAS as well as the use of cloud computing. These three main developments of information fall in line with the  three generations of information technologies, the first used to prevent intrusions, the 2nd to detect intrusion and the 3rd for survivability. Information assurance is a collaborative effort of all sectors of life to allow a free and equal exchange of ideas.

Pillars
Information assurance is built between five pillars: availability, integrity, authentication, confidentiality and nonrepudiation. These pillars are taken into account to protect systems while still allowing them to efficiently provide services; However, these pillars do not act independently from one another, rather they interfere with the goal of the other pillars. These pillars of information assurance have slowly changed to become referred to as the pillars of Cyber Security. As a administrator it is important to emphasis the pillars that you want in order to achieve your desired result for their information system, balancing the aspects of service, and privacy.

Authentication
Authentication refers to the verification of the validity of a transmission, originator, or process within an information system. Authentication provides the recipient confidence in the data senders validity as well as the validity of their message. There exists many ways to bolster authentication, mainly breaking down into three main ways, personally identifiable information such as a person's name, address telephone number, access to a key token, or known information, like passwords.

Integrity
The pillar of integrity refers to the protection of information from unauthorized modification, retrieval or deleted. The goal of information integrity is to ensure data is accurate and Integrity is accurate and complete throughout its entire lifespan. Information integrity is ensured with an increase to user authorization. The integrity of information is a function of how many degrees-of-trust there is between each ends. One way that the integrity of data is through the use of redundant design of chips and software. An example where integrity has been compromised is through three quarters of hospitals in the United States failing to have adequate password schemes, this poses many gangers such as allowing individual to prescribe unnecessary drugs or procedures.

Availability
The pillar of availability refers to the preservation of data to be retrieved or modified from authorized individuals. Higher availability is preserved through an increase in storage system or channel reliability. Breaches in information availability can result from power outages, hardware failures, DDOS, etc. The goal of high availability is to preserve access to information. Availability of information can be bolstered by the use of backup power, spare data channels, off site capabilities and continuous signal.

Confidentiality
Confidentiality is in essence the opposite of Integrity. Confidentiality is a security measure which protects against who is able to access the data, which is done by shielding who has access to the information. This is different from Integrity as integrity is shielding who can change the information. Confidentiality is often ensured with the use of cryptography and steganography of data. Confidentiality can be seen within the classification and information superiority with international operations such as NATO Information assurance confidentiality in the United States need to follow HIPAA and healthcare provider security policy information labeling and need-to-know regulations to ensure nondisclosure of information.

Non-repudiation
Nonrepudiation is the integrity of the data to be true to its origin, which prevents possible denial that an action occurred. Increasing non-repudiation makes it more difficult to deny that the information comes from a certain source. In other words, it making it so that you can not dispute the source/ authenticity of data. Non-repudiation involves the reduction to data integrity while that data is in transit, usually through the use of a man-in-the-middle attack or phishing.

Interactions of Pillars
As stated earlier the pillars do not interact independently of one another, with some pillars impeding on the functioning of other pillars or in the opposite case where they boost other pillars. For example the increasing the availability of information works directly against the goals of three other pillars: integrity, authentication and confidentiality.

Techniques/Processes
The information assurance process typically begins with the enumeration and classification of the information assets to be protected. Next, the IA practitioner will perform a risk assessment for those assets. Vulnerabilities in the information assets are determined in order to enumerate the threats capable of exploiting the assets. The assessment then considers both the probability and impact of a threat exploiting a vulnerability in an asset, with impact usually measured in terms of cost to the asset's stakeholders. The sum of the products of the threats' impact and the probability of their occurring is the total risk to the information asset.

With the risk assessment complete, the IA practitioner then develops a risk management plan. This plan proposes countermeasures that involve mitigating, eliminating, accepting, or transferring the risks, and considers prevention, detection, and response to threats. A framework published by a standards organization, such as NIST RMF, Risk IT, CobiT, PCI DSS or ISO/IEC 27002, may guide development. Countermeasures may include technical tools such as firewalls and anti-virus software, policies and procedures requiring such controls as regular backups and configuration hardening, employee training in security awareness, or organizing personnel into dedicated computer emergency response team (CERT) or computer security incident response team (CSIRT). The cost and benefit of each countermeasure is carefully considered. Thus, the IA practitioner does not seek to eliminate all risks, were that possible, but to manage them in the most cost-effective way.

After the risk management plan is implemented, it is tested and evaluated, often by means of formal audits. The IA process is an iterative one, in that the risk assessment and risk management plan are meant to be periodically revised and improved based on data gathered about their completeness and effectiveness.

There do exist two meta-techniques with information assurance: audit and risk assessment.

Business Risk Management
Business Risk Management breaks down into three main processes Risk Assessment, Risk Mitigation and Evaluation and assessment. Information Assurance is one of the methodologies which organizations use to implement business risk management. Through the use of information assurance policies like the "BRICK" frame work. Additionally, Business Risk Management also occurs to comply with federal and international laws regarding the release and security of information such as HIPAA Information assurance can be aligned with corporates strategies through training and awareness, senior management involvement and support, and intra-organizational communication allowing for greater internal control and business risk management. Many security executives in are firms are moving to a reliance on information assurance to protect intellectual property, protect against potential data leakage, and protect users against themselves. While the use of information assurance is good ensuring certain pillars like, confidentiality, Non-repudiation etc. because of their conflicting nature an increase in security often comes at the expense of speed. This being said, the use of information assurance in the business model improves reliable management decision making, customer trust, business continuity and good governance in both the public and private sector.

Standards organization and standards
Main article: IT risk § Standards Organizations and Standards

There are a number of international and national bodies that issue standards on information assurance practices, policies, and procedures. In the UK, these include the Information Assurance Advisory Council, ACPO guidelines, and the Information Assurance Collaboration Group.

10/24/2020 WEEK 5
Notes for improving Information assurance Wikipedia page.


 * Add 2 Sections
 * "Digital" which will cover the use/techniques of information assurance in the digital form.
 * "Physical" which will cover the use/ techniques of information assurance in the physical form.
 * Cut down the redundancies with tin the introduction paragraph.
 * Re-arrange information in the introduction paragraph.
 * use better cited definition of IA for overview.
 * Could add possible section about business use ex. information risk management.
 * Could also divide process into a new section of Standards and organizations which was added but has no information in it
 * link article to information security

New Section Outline

* Basic principles of IA

** confidentialty

** integrity

** avalibility

** Non-repudiation

For physical digital only have 1 source to go off of... so will delay outlining those.

10/17/2020 WEEK 4
I have been selected to contribute to the following selected article Information assurance. looking at the page itself it seems that I could best help this page by providing a greater amount of precise inline citations. Additionally, although this article is a B rank article and not a stub I think that that I can expand it a lot and make the flow of the article better/more understandable. Lastly I could add sections making the information easier to read more broken up and layed out (making it go from a 2 paragraph article to an article of nested components like Search engine privacy.

WEEK 2
Evaluate an article 1

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Search engine privacy: (Search engine privacy)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate as it covers a subset of internet privacy which deals with the user data being collected by search engines.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it clearly states what Search engine privacy is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it touches upon most of the subsections, each given their own sentence.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all the information included in the lead it is present in some form later on in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, The lead gives 2-3 sentence covering what a search engine is and how that relates to privacy. Then they give a 1 sentence description of the article's major subsection

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content is relevant to search engine privacy.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content of this article is up to date to 2018-2019 standards
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the data seems to be related to the topic of search engine privacy and is contained with in the correct subheading. The only part of this article that I found might not be fitting was a random sentence at the beginning of the Ethical Debates section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, not having information pertaining to race, social structure, education or socio-economics. This article also does not address topics related to historically underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, for areas of potential bias both view points are covered to the same extent. This is mainly seen in the Ethical debates sub-section.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are not any claims that are heavily biased. Potential biases are seen in the ethical debates sub section
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, this page covers both the pro and anti view points held by the current population and niches
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary source of information. However, some articles are not backed up by a peer reviewed journal
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, but some take literature from the wrong location ex website of the actual topic ( citation 11)
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are from the times of the event and stem up to the 2018-2019 year which was when the last major section of this paper was written
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, I do not know the all of the writings or even a majority of the writings in this field so I am unable to determinately say if they included marginalized individual where possible, but the selection of authors seemed pretty diverse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, links work good where available. One link is present but not hyperlinked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well written its points are divided logically, making it both easy to read and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I could find.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, as stated before the sections are divided in a logical order which benefits the topic and makes it easy to understand.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, but I do not feel that there are many images that would benefit this article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are talks about how to improve the page both in content and in formatting.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * yes it is within the WikiProject Mass Surveillance and WikiProject Internet.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I looked into the authors and it literally is an article written in this class. This article differs from the way we read about articles in class as this one is brand new and seemed to be contained more in a class than a large open net thing.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article has not yet received a content assessment, and does not have any alerts
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article strengths are the succinctness of the information as well the organization of information through subheading divisions.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article could be improved by fixing the duckduck go citation as well as either expanding on or removing that sentence that seemed out of place
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would Access this articles completeness to almost fully complete, other than making a couple things more clear I would believe the page in itself is complete for this time.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback:

Evaluate an article (2):
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Data Protection Act 2018: (Data Protection Act 2018)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to as it covers legislation regarding the update to data protection.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it clearly states what the Data Protection Act 2018 is and what it does in 2 sentences.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it touches on both the background to this legislation and the contents of it.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all the information included in the lead it is present in some form later on in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, The lead gives 2 sentence covering what the Data Protection Act is and what it does. Could be potentially made more concise but it for sure is not overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content is relevant to Data Protection Act 2018.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content of this article is up to date to 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the data seems to be related to the topic of search engine privacy and is contained with in the correct subheading.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, not having information pertaining to race, social structure, education or socio-economics. This article also does not address topics related to historically underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, this article is neutral covering the law itself rather than opinions about said law
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it does not seem to have a narrative/ agenda it only really reports on the contents of the Data Protection Act 2018

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, but there is copy righted information being cited which potentially goes against wiki's policies.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are from the times around when this legislation was passed.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, these seem to all be from government sources ( However it is just referencing government documents which I do not believe to be a problem)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, links work for both the citations as well as the external links.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well written its points are divided logically, making it both easy to read and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I could find.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, the sub sub lists are not presented in a logical way and it contains a confusing list of lists making it hard to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is an image of the seal of the Act of Parliament of the UK however I do not believe it helps enhance understanding other than being an external link
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * yes it is within the WikiProject Law
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The way wikipedia discusses this topic differs from the way we've talked about it in class is that the talk page is empty

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article has been rated stub-class with mid-importance
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article strengths are the lack of bias and brevity
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article could be improved by fixing the order of information making it more understandable and intuitve, as well as making potential new subsections.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would Access this articles completeness as under developed as it is a very basic description of the topic but can be expanded in many ways in content and quality

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback:

Peer review by Niangao
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? sauceboss12
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?yes
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This article is very solid. it developed the concept information assurance throughly, especially the five pillars section is really well-orgnized.